This thread has been pretty good and has brought in a lot of discussion about the history of the violence in the ME. But, I would like to ask for some more comments on possible solutions.
1) The islamic bomb. Not too many, just a handful, enough to reduce the 3 major cities in Israel to radioactive desert. Until now, nuclear powered countries have never waged war against each other, whereas they regularly attack countries having only conventional forces. Israel has between 50 and 100 A-bombs, so 5 - 10 in the hands of their most deadly enemies would give new meaning to the word deterrence. A first strike would not be possible, since Israel has SLBMs for a second-strike option.
2) A security pact between the Arab League, Israel, and the US , securing the right of each nation to their own country. This would force the arabs to respect Israel and Israel to respect a palestine state.
3) A fair negociation of Israels borders. The 1967 borders are a pipe dream, but as many as possible of the illegal settlements must be destroyed.
4) A Marshall plan funded by the EU, US, and rich arab countries (unlikely) which is directed exclusively at democratic countries in the region.
5) Strengthening of moderate Islam. Did you know Turkey has an islamist government? Yet their actual politics are much more reasonable and up to western standards than the previous govt (abolishing of the death penalty, torture, widespread corruption) - not least due to a possible EU membership. This means that moderate islam can be nurtured.
6) Accept that in the short run, noone will be able to forcibly stop suicide bombings. Israel mus vow to stop destroying villages and killing civilians there in retaliation. Instead, a UN-supervised demilitarized zone need to be established and special-ops need to take out Hamas weapons caches.
Of course, all talk is cheap. Points 1, 2, and 6 are not in the current interest of either Israel or the militant christians residing in the White House, points 2 and 5 will raise the hairs of conservative islamic govts, and point 3 will take years.
1) The islamic bomb. Not too many, just a handful, enough to reduce the 3 major cities in Israel to radioactive desert. Until now, nuclear powered countries have never waged war against each other, whereas they regularly attack countries having only conventional forces. Israel has between 50 and 100 A-bombs, so 5 - 10 in the hands of their most deadly enemies would give new meaning to the word deterrence. A first strike would not be possible, since Israel has SLBMs for a second-strike option.
I don't see the interest of an islamic bomb, more precisely an middle east islamic bomb. Because the islamic bomb already exist : it belongs to Pakistan who has several of them.
Futhermore i have problem with the association of the terms bomb and religion, especially if the bomb is a nuclear one. I never see someone referred to the Christian bomb, or the jewish bomb. Some countries have bomb, none of them said that it has something to do with their religions. (end of this disgression)
It's dangerous when dictatures own nuclear bombs especially if the power belong to the hand of only one people like Saddam. China, USSR have bomb but the power was not in a single hand. So if even one leader turned crazy and decided to push on the button, the others will stop him. I am not so confident in some governements of the middle east.
We should also remember that Israel won't use a nuclear bomb upon the last limit. Bombing let's say palestine or his neighboors will hurt Israel directly via radiation. If it will be like France bomb geneva, it will kill also the habitants of evian in a middle or late term. In short nuking your neighboors is like nuking your self.
I don't see the interest of an islamic bomb, more precisely an middle east islamic bomb. Because the islamic bomb already exist : it belongs to Pakistan who has several of them.
It's dangerous when dictatures own nuclear bombs especially if the power belong to the hand of only one people like Saddam. China, USSR have bomb but the power was not in a single hand. So if even one leader turned crazy and decided to push on the button, the others will stop him. I am not so confident in some governements of the middle east.
1. Pakistan is not in the neighbourhood of Israel and as such doesn't have any border-problems with Israel, no, Jordan, Syria and Egypt must have atom-bombs as a balance to Israel's arsenal or Israel must be disarmed regarding its WMD's.
2. It's not dangerous that the atom-bombs are under control of dictators, at least not more dangerous than in democracies, for reference, see Stalin. Or Truman's use of atom-bombs in Japan, or Bish trying to get through laws that allow the US to nuke countries that don't have nukes, and the space-shield-program, that should make the US invulnerable to nuclear rockets, and is therefore a blanque-cheuque for the US to nuke even countries with nukes without fearing counter-nuking. No, democracies are definetly not better than dictatorhips regarding weapons, nukes etc, they are both on the same level.
1. Pakistan is not in the neighbourhood of Israel and as such doesn't have any border-problems with Israel, no, Jordan, Syria and Egypt must have atom-bombs as a balance to Israel's arsenal or Israel must be disarmed regarding its WMD's.
2. It's not dangerous that the atom-bombs are under control of dictators, at least not more dangerous than in democracies, for reference, see Stalin. Or Truman's use of atom-bombs in Japan, or Bish trying to get through laws that allow the US to nuke countries that don't have nukes, and the space-shield-program, that should make the US invulnerable to nuclear rockets, and is therefore a blanque-cheuque for the US to nuke even countries with nukes without fearing counter-nuking. No, democracies are definetly not better than dictatorhips regarding weapons, nukes etc, they are both on the same level.
Nightcrawler
1) It's not me who used the term islamic bomb. It's a very bad term.
2) stalin was a dangerous guy, WW3 was not that far away at these times. Stalin did not engage war with US in 1945 because of the atomic bomb.
3) Democracies are better for WMD than dictatorship, because the president has not a white paper allowing to do whatever he want.
3) Democracies are better for WMD than dictatorship, because the president has not a white paper allowing to do whatever he want.
Pretty ironic that the only two A-bombs ever used to wipe out cities were used by a democracy. Sort of contradicts the argument, huh?
You need not agree with me, but I believe the only thing preventing the west and east to wage war against each other during the cold war was mutually assured destruction.
Probably the same is true for the continual low-level conflict between India and Pakistan. Or for the relationship between the US and China or the USSR and China.
Pretty ironic that the only two A-bombs ever used to wipe out cities were used by a democracy. Sort of contradicts the argument, huh?
You need not agree with me, but I believe the only thing preventing the west and east to wage war against each other during the cold war was mutually assured destruction.
Probably the same is true for the continual low-level conflict between India and Pakistan. Or for the relationship between the US and China or the USSR and China.
1) It was the first time it was used. At the time the nuclear weapon was not taboo. It's after it became when people discovered the terrible consequences of such bomb.
2) give the bomb to the right hand, and you will have a suicide bomber will be delighted to do the trick .
The middle east conflict is much more than a simple problems of unbalance of weapons.
I don't say I agree with most of Israeli actions, I am not a fan of Sharon, but it's not by given their bloodiest ennemy the possibility to annhilate them, that you will bring peace.
I will never give a nuclear bomb to a countrie who have connections with terrorist org.
3) The two war against Israel where not started by Israel. The Kipour war could have been a disaster. After this you can understand why It's importatnt for Israel to have the military superiority.
Yes the middle east theater do not help to fight against terrorism. But remember that :
- you do not solve the problem by removing one group (exile the israelians or the palestinian)
- even if the problem of the middle east was solved, the problem with be displace elsewhere. Fanatics use conflicts in order to foster their bloody ideology. If one conflict vanish, they will soon find an another one to replace it.
I just write that, because I have the feeling sometime, that many people think that life on earth will be better without Isreal.
PS : this is not an apology to all isreali actions : destructions of houses, deaths of innocents ... This is just that I don't think it's by giving more weapons to an other camp that we solve this.
3) The two war against Israel where not started by Israel. The Kipour war could have been a disaster. After this you can understand why It's importatnt for Israel to have the military superiority.
1. Regarding your comment about dictatorships being in greater probability of using the atom-bomb. It's not true, the Stalin-dictatorship had atom-bombs and didn't use them ever except for deterrence, same is applicable regarding Pakistan. No, the possesion of atom-bombs actually brings security from being attacked, and is an absolute necessity these days for every souvereign state in order to protect its citizens.
Actually the US is the only country that wants the option to use nukes on countries that don't have nukes, and is pushing forward a space-shield-program which will allow the US in the future to use nukes even on countries that do possess nukes.
2. It weren't just two wars that Israel fought against the surrounding arabic countries, it were at least six wars, one in 1948, one in 1956, one in 1967, one in 1972, one in 1978 (against Lebanon) and one in 1982 (again against Lebanon), and all of them were started by Israel, except for the one in 1972. But you know how israelic propaganda works, backed by the protector USA.
One thing people forget is that the fundamentally-religiously inclined in the ME, particularly Islamic fundamentalists want to die!
And, they think that anybody of faith, (Islamic) that die in teh 'just-cause' will also be better in heaven with the 70 Prune-trees . . .
Give them a bomb and they will use it to wipe out Israel faster that you can blink and laugh about the retribution that will send so many glorious martyrs into god's great Date-fields.
Don't believe me? then you missunderstand the irrationality of fundamentalism . . . these people are killing themselves in order to kill a few people on buses
Perhaps we are too used to it to understand how irrational that is . . just use some empathy and put yourself in the bombers place: what would they be thinking in order to strap on the bombs: or worse, to sling bombs on a 13 year old?
One thing people forget is that the fundamentally-religiously inclined in the ME, particularly Islamic fundamentalists want to die!
And, they think that anybody of faith, (Islamic) that die in teh 'just-cause' will also be better in heaven with the 70 Prune-trees . . .
Give them a bomb and they will use it to wipe out Israel faster that you can blink and laugh about the retribution that will send so many glorious martyrs into god's great Date-fields.
Don't believe me? then you missunderstand the irrationality of fundamentalism . . . these people are killing themselves in order to kill a few people on buses
Perhaps we are too used to it to understand how irrational that is . . just use some empathy and put yourself in the bombers place: what would they be thinking in order to strap on the bombs: or worse, to sling bombs on a 13 year old?
Sorry, pflam, as much as I agree with you on other topics, on this topic you are totally wrong, and you have swallowed US-propaganda on this one.
Islamic fundamentalists are quite extremistic as they always strive for the absolute maximum of success or total failure, they don't like compromises, but they also are bound in their religion which only allows for war in defense or for opressed people and revenge or retaliation only in the extent of the damage done by the enemy, and it certainly doesn't allow for exaggerated killings, even in the fundamentalism-interpretation of the Islam.
You want examples: Israel vs Palestine-conflict is the perfect example to illustrate that. Israel has obviously droven out a lot of palestinians from their homes and land in order to found Israel, and it has obviously occupated Gaza and Westbank, and opress the palestinians there. Resistance came up first in the form of a secular national movement which later on unified in the PLO, and later on in the islamic movement of Hamas (which by the way was founded with the help of Israel) and Islamic Dschihad, Hizbollah, and other islamistic resistance-movements.
What do they fight, and I now concentrate only on the islamistic resistance: The israelic army in the occupied areas by guerillia-tactics, successfully done in south-Lebanon. The resistance in the occupied areas has led the israelic army to commit collective punishments by massimprisonments (for the sake of recruiting collaborateurs by torturings and threats to do the torturings also on the familiy-members, wifes and children), killing of civilians in the occupied areas, destroying of harvests, curfews, etc...
Espescially the killing of civilians has led to the decision by the islamistic resistance-groups to conduct retaliation-operations, and that is the point, retaliation, the try to revenge the dead civilians by killing also civilians in Israel, but only in the same amount. Israel likes to use snipers, tanks, helicopters and jets to fire rockets into highly populated civilian areas, espescially into civilian buildings.
The israelic army also likes to bury alive palestinians by demolishing their homes during the curfew-times!
The islamistic resistance-groups don't have bulldozers, tanks, helicopters or reliable rockets, so they use people to bring bombs manually to its destinations in Israel, martyrs, who think that when they die they automatically come into paradise whithout looking on their sins. (which is by the way a false belief, as suicide-bombing doesn't count as dying in a war against agressors, but it also doesn't mean automatically hell for them, as retaliation is definetly allowed, so it's back to step one, the sins and good deeds done in life are examined on judgement day, and then decided if the destination of the revenger is hell or paradise).
Up until today Israel kills five times as many civilians in the occupied areas as the resistance-groups kill in Israel, so they haven't achieved the full revenge, but they certainly would never kill more than the agressor Israel kills, as that would mean crossing the line of balance the Islam has prescripted to keep, and it would mean hell for the islamists.
No, even if the islamists would have an atom-bombs, they wouldn't use them, except for deterrence or for the improbable case that the islamists were attacked by an atom-bomb, so the retaliation-rule would allow them to counter-nuke.
Islamists sure are ready to die for their cause, but they wouldn't want to cross the line of proportion and balance, as they would definetly land in hell for that and they know it.
Sorry, pflam, as much as I agree with you on other topics, on this topic you are totally wrong, and you have swallowed US-propaganda on this one.
Islamic fundamentalists are quite extremistic as they always strive for the absolute maximum of success or total failure, they don't like compromises, but they also are bound in their religion which only allows for war in defense or for opressed people and revenge or retaliation only in the extent of the damage done by the enemy, and it certainly doesn't allow for exaggerated killings, even in the fundamentalism-interpretation of the Islam.
You want examples: Israel vs Palestine-conflict is the perfect example to illustrate that. Israel has obviously droven out a lot of palestinians from their homes and land in order to found Israel, and it has obviously occupated Gaza and Westbank, and opress the palestinians there. Resistance came up first in the form of a secular national movement which later on unified in the PLO, and later on in the islamic movement of Hamas (which by the way was founded with the help of Israel) and Islamic Dschihad, Hizbollah, and other islamistic resistance-movements.
What do they fight, and I now concentrate only on the islamistic resistance: The israelic army in the occupied areas by guerillia-tactics, successfully done in south-Lebanon. The resistance in the occupied areas has led the israelic army to commit collective punishments by massimprisonments (for the sake of recruiting collaborateurs by torturings and threats to do the torturings also on the familiy-members, wifes and children), killing of civilians in the occupied areas, destroying of harvests, curfews, etc...
Espescially the killing of civilians has led to the decision by the islamistic resistance-groups to conduct retaliation-operations, and that is the point, retaliation, the try to revenge the dead civilians by killing also civilians in Israel, but only in the same amount. Israel likes to use snipers, tanks, helicopters and jets to fire rockets into highly populated civilian areas, espescially into civilian buildings.
The israelic army also likes to bury alive palestinians by demolishing their homes during the curfew-times!
The islamistic resistance-groups don't have bulldozers, tanks, helicopters or reliable rockets, so they use people to bring bombs manually to its destinations in Israel, martyrs, who think that when they die they automatically come into paradise whithout looking on their sins. (which is by the way a false belief, as suicide-bombing doesn't count as dying in a war against agressors, but it also doesn't mean automatically hell for them, as retaliation is definetly allowed, so it's back to step one, the sins and good deeds done in life are examined on judgement day, and then decided if the destination of the revenger is hell or paradise).
Up until today Israel kills five times as many civilians in the occupied areas as the resistance-groups kill in Israel, so they haven't achieved the full revenge, but they certainly would never kill more than the agressor Israel kills, as that would mean crossing the line of balance the Islam has prescripted to keep, and it would mean hell for the islamists.
No, even if the islamists would have an atom-bombs, they wouldn't use them, except for deterrence or for the improbable case that the islamists were attacked by an atom-bomb, so the retaliation-rule would allow them to counter-nuke.
Islamists sure are ready to die for their cause, but they wouldn't want to cross the line of proportion and balance, as they would definetly land in hell for that and they know it.
Nightcrawler
Explain where is the rule of balance in the 9/11 attack ?
Extremist understand their religion in their own special way. They have their own agenda. Otherwise how can we explain and inquisition ? It's obvious that this missbehavioring have nothing to do with the message of the christ.
Explain where is the rule of balance in the 9/11 attack ?
Extremist understand their religion in their own special way. They have their own agenda. Otherwise how can we explain and inquisition ? It's obvious that this missbehavioring have nothing to do with the message of the christ.
I can't talk about christianity as I don't know much about it, but I can talk about muslims, the moderate, the militant and the fundamentalistic muslims. Currently there are 1,5 billion mulsims in the world, and about 90% of them are moderate mulsims, though most of them are in some for or the other opressed, be it by the Israelis, the russians, or even by their own governments which are mostly dictatory regimes installed and military supported by the US.
The 9/11 attack in the US included an attack on the pentagon, a tried attack on the congress or whitehouse, and an attack on the WTC. The death-toll was something in the range of 3,000-5,000 killed civilians, I don't remember the last estimate.
The US on the other hand led many wars, mostly placeholderwars in the islamic countries, like in the Lebanon-wars, in the IraqvsIran-war, or the Afganistan vs. Sovietunion-war, etc...
leading to much more than a few thousand killed civilians.
There is also the indirect killing of civilians by the USA by supporting dictatory regimes, which suppress their own people in the islamic world, that would have been otherwise long ago toppled.
Then there is the installation of the Baath-regime in Iraq with Saddam Hussein as its leader, and then the military support of it, including chemical weapons...
Then there is the support for Israel, financial support with 3 billions dollars annualy, and with the latest war-technologies with which Israel suppresses the palestinians, and with which Israel has started many wars against the arabic neighbour-states in order to expand.
It's only the first time an islamistic organization comes up, which was by the way financed, trained and supported by the US as the enemy was still the Soviet-Union, that tries to play the same game as the terroristic organizations of the US, like the CIA and the paramilitary-troops.
and thats only the organized stuff.. there are lots of people that hate jews. I hear some people complain about them all the time...
True. People may spray graffiti about a particular group and that is result of hatred. But very few groups are hated to the same degree as Jews, even to the point of it becoming cultural, even a part of language. When was the last time you heard someone say they just got muslimed on a purchase? Calling someone a 'chink' or 'nigger' only really makes sense when used as a derogotory term against a member of a specific group. Calling someone a shylock conveys the same meaning regardless of who you label with it, even though it was originally a derogatory term for jews, specifically insulting them as ruthless moneylenders.
People who claim they don't think there is both organised and genenal hatred for Jews, regardless of Israel's actions and that it is more cross-culturally pervasive have really made themselves purposefully ignorant.
And martyrs don't want to go to the hereafter having committed a catalogue of sins the night before.
Unless of course they have been convinced their martyrdom will absolve them of all their sins. Hell, complete absolution based on your final act might even make one more willing to taste all the fruit forbidden to you.
No, even if the islamists would have an atom-bombs, they wouldn't use them, except for deterrence or for the improbable case that the islamists were attacked by an atom-bomb, so the retaliation-rule would allow them to counter-nuke.
Unless of course they haven't actually tallied up the exact number of muslim deaths caused by Israel and figure that any number of jews killed would 'balance' they scales. Very rarely does exact equity come into play when dealing with revenge, especially when religion and emotions are mixed in.
Quote:
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Islamists sure are ready to die for their cause, but they wouldn't want to cross the line of proportion and balance, as they would definetly land in hell for that and they know it.
Calling for the complete erradication of the jews doesn't exactly fit with your arguement of them needing to find some zen-like balance in the number of deaths they seek.
I think that nightcrawlwer is talking about a phenomena that is entirely too rational: sure some of the Palistinian bombers are acting in a sort of balanced manner:
AQ does not care for defensive measures: they want to and have expressed as much, kill as many 'infidel Americans' as they can, not to mention 'Zionist Jews' . . the percentage is small, but the proof to the contrary, meaning the proof that the suicide mindset that wants to die for Heavenly Glory, is all too obvious and real -- and it is not a political position or the product of propaganda.
If AQ had the bomb it would only take the time needed to place it for them to use it . . . our faith in 'humanity' is entirely too leanient when it comes to their capacities and desires.
I think that nightcrawlwer is talking about a phenomena that is entirely too rational: sure some of the Palistinian bombers are acting in a sort of balanced manner:
AQ does not care for defensive measures: they want to and have expressed as much, kill as many 'infidel Americans' as they can, not to mention 'Zionist Jews' . . the percentage is small, but the proof to the contrary, meaning the proof that the suicide mindset that wants to die for Heavenly Glory, is all too obvious and real -- and it is not a political position or the product of propaganda.
If AQ had the bomb it would only take the time needed to place it for them to use it . . . our faith in 'humanity' is entirely too leanient when it comes to their capacities and desires.
I think nightcrawler has a point. Just because we don't understand our enemy, it doesn't mean he's crazy. This is a common error in the west. Demonization of the enemy been happening all through history. But it turnes out most enemies can make peace.
You pfflam, should see that this fits right into the Bushiate worldveiw of good Vs. Evil...
Many poeple manage their religion with their own cooking, especially extremists. They have an agenda and they follow it. They are not in quest of the "truth". It doesn't mean that they are hypocrite : they follow their own personal agenda. They see in their religion what they want to see, but they have the greatest faith in it.
From you own word they follow a logic.
But what I wanted to point out, is that their logic, is not the logic of their religion, and therefore it's not because let's say Islam or any other religion said that you should not reteliate more than you have suffer that they will follow it. They will find an excuse like these people indirectly killed so many peoples and that's a reason to kill them all.
Quote:
I can't talk about christianity as I don't know much about it, but I can talk about muslims, the moderate, the militant and the fundamentalistic muslims. Currently there are 1,5 billion mulsims in the world, and about 90% of them are moderate mulsims, though most of them are in some for or the other opressed, be it by the Israelis, the russians, or even by their own governments which are mostly dictatory regimes installed and military supported by the US.
The 9/11 attack in the US included an attack on the pentagon, a tried attack on the congress or whitehouse, and an attack on the WTC. The death-toll was something in the range of 3,000-5,000 killed civilians, I don't remember the last estimate.
The US on the other hand led many wars, mostly placeholderwars in the islamic countries, like in the Lebanon-wars, in the IraqvsIran-war, or the Afganistan vs. Sovietunion-war, etc...
leading to much more than a few thousand killed civilians.
There is also the indirect killing of civilians by the USA by supporting dictatory regimes, which suppress their own people in the islamic world, that would have been otherwise long ago toppled.
Then there is the installation of the Baath-regime in Iraq with Saddam Hussein as its leader, and then the military support of it, including chemical weapons...
Then there is the support for Israel, financial support with 3 billions dollars annualy, and with the latest war-technologies with which Israel suppresses the palestinians, and with which Israel has started many wars against the arabic neighbour-states in order to expand.
It's only the first time an islamistic organization comes up, which was by the way financed, trained and supported by the US as the enemy was still the Soviet-Union, that tries to play the same game as the terroristic organizations of the US, like the CIA and the paramilitary-troops.
Nightcrawler
First paragraph : OK
Second paragraph : Sorry but it's too easy. US did not went to war with these countries, they just give support to one side. It's always like this. Even without support, the war will have done many casualties, and too much deaths. Nobody asked Iraq to attack Iran, nor syria to invade libanon. I have many grips against US politic, but it's too easy to transform US in the scapegoat of all problems of the world. It's way to easy to explain that dictatorship exist in middle east because of US.
Occidental countries have their sins and responsabilites in the current state of the world, but some countries should make their own autocritic.
I will be absolutely clear : there is no excuse for 9/11 attack. People who made it don't give a rat ass of the events you related : they just hate US , because it incarnate the arrogant domination of the occindental world at this time of history.
Third : US never installed Saddam. They helped him in the first time, after he took power , like many occidental countries, who believed falsely he was a modern man.
Fourth : US give found to Iraq, but also to arab countries, like Egyptia who recieved also billions of fund ( i haven't the exact number)
Fifht : the CIA has fucked many things it's not new. perhaps they have sucess, but we never heard of it.
I think nightcrawler has a point. Just because we don't understand our enemy, it doesn't mean he's crazy. This is a common error in the west. Demonization of the enemy been happening all through history. But it turnes out most enemies can make peace.
You pfflam, should see that this fits right into the Bushiate worldveiw of good Vs. Evil...
It is unfortunate that it 'fits right in ' with that world-view, but the fact is is that no matter how much I might want to drink a beer with them and might even kinda get along -as they seem like chummy fellows: they want to kill me, they have proclaimed as much, OBL even declared war about 6 months before 911 and stated as much. 'Kill Americans wherever you find them' . . didn't need to say Jews, that was allready understood along time ago.
They may not be 'Evil', but the thoughts that grip their heads and keep them from thinking beyond a their extremely over-constructed ideology is as close to a definition as I can come up with . . . me, who doesn't believe in absolute 'evil'. . . .
(Just know that much of what America is doing helps fill-out that definition for me, of a possible way of using the term 'evil' as a descriptive non-substantive reality)
Iraq was a mistake, but make no mistake: the Islamic Radicals that are like AQ,and AQ are the same as the worst of Nazi Fascists, and would, if they could, resort to the same form of killing . . .
. . . unlike Nazis, they might be more 'conflicted', as it does seem to contradict thier expressed religion . . . but they have shown that they can smooth that over by simply denying humanity to the western infidels.
If I remember what the Bible says on the subject, it goes all the way back to Cain and Abel.
Cain's descendants are those nationalities in the ME. I remeber in Genesis, I think it was the 4th chapter that they will be cursed as vagrants. i also remember there being other references to Cain's descendants being cursed.
It could explain it, if you put stock in the Bible.
Comments
Originally posted by Tulkas
This thread has been pretty good and has brought in a lot of discussion about the history of the violence in the ME. But, I would like to ask for some more comments on possible solutions.
1) The islamic bomb. Not too many, just a handful, enough to reduce the 3 major cities in Israel to radioactive desert. Until now, nuclear powered countries have never waged war against each other, whereas they regularly attack countries having only conventional forces. Israel has between 50 and 100 A-bombs, so 5 - 10 in the hands of their most deadly enemies would give new meaning to the word deterrence. A first strike would not be possible, since Israel has SLBMs for a second-strike option.
2) A security pact between the Arab League, Israel, and the US , securing the right of each nation to their own country. This would force the arabs to respect Israel and Israel to respect a palestine state.
3) A fair negociation of Israels borders. The 1967 borders are a pipe dream, but as many as possible of the illegal settlements must be destroyed.
4) A Marshall plan funded by the EU, US, and rich arab countries (unlikely) which is directed exclusively at democratic countries in the region.
5) Strengthening of moderate Islam. Did you know Turkey has an islamist government? Yet their actual politics are much more reasonable and up to western standards than the previous govt (abolishing of the death penalty, torture, widespread corruption) - not least due to a possible EU membership. This means that moderate islam can be nurtured.
6) Accept that in the short run, noone will be able to forcibly stop suicide bombings. Israel mus vow to stop destroying villages and killing civilians there in retaliation. Instead, a UN-supervised demilitarized zone need to be established and special-ops need to take out Hamas weapons caches.
Of course, all talk is cheap. Points 1, 2, and 6 are not in the current interest of either Israel or the militant christians residing in the White House, points 2 and 5 will raise the hairs of conservative islamic govts, and point 3 will take years.
Originally posted by Smircle
1) The islamic bomb. Not too many, just a handful, enough to reduce the 3 major cities in Israel to radioactive desert. Until now, nuclear powered countries have never waged war against each other, whereas they regularly attack countries having only conventional forces. Israel has between 50 and 100 A-bombs, so 5 - 10 in the hands of their most deadly enemies would give new meaning to the word deterrence. A first strike would not be possible, since Israel has SLBMs for a second-strike option.
I don't see the interest of an islamic bomb, more precisely an middle east islamic bomb. Because the islamic bomb already exist : it belongs to Pakistan who has several of them.
Futhermore i have problem with the association of the terms bomb and religion, especially if the bomb is a nuclear one. I never see someone referred to the Christian bomb, or the jewish bomb. Some countries have bomb, none of them said that it has something to do with their religions. (end of this disgression)
It's dangerous when dictatures own nuclear bombs especially if the power belong to the hand of only one people like Saddam. China, USSR have bomb but the power was not in a single hand. So if even one leader turned crazy and decided to push on the button, the others will stop him. I am not so confident in some governements of the middle east.
We should also remember that Israel won't use a nuclear bomb upon the last limit. Bombing let's say palestine or his neighboors will hurt Israel directly via radiation. If it will be like France bomb geneva, it will kill also the habitants of evian in a middle or late term. In short nuking your neighboors is like nuking your self.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I don't see the interest of an islamic bomb, more precisely an middle east islamic bomb. Because the islamic bomb already exist : it belongs to Pakistan who has several of them.
It's dangerous when dictatures own nuclear bombs especially if the power belong to the hand of only one people like Saddam. China, USSR have bomb but the power was not in a single hand. So if even one leader turned crazy and decided to push on the button, the others will stop him. I am not so confident in some governements of the middle east.
1. Pakistan is not in the neighbourhood of Israel and as such doesn't have any border-problems with Israel, no, Jordan, Syria and Egypt must have atom-bombs as a balance to Israel's arsenal or Israel must be disarmed regarding its WMD's.
2. It's not dangerous that the atom-bombs are under control of dictators, at least not more dangerous than in democracies, for reference, see Stalin. Or Truman's use of atom-bombs in Japan, or Bish trying to get through laws that allow the US to nuke countries that don't have nukes, and the space-shield-program, that should make the US invulnerable to nuclear rockets, and is therefore a blanque-cheuque for the US to nuke even countries with nukes without fearing counter-nuking. No, democracies are definetly not better than dictatorhips regarding weapons, nukes etc, they are both on the same level.
Nightcrawler
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
1. Pakistan is not in the neighbourhood of Israel and as such doesn't have any border-problems with Israel, no, Jordan, Syria and Egypt must have atom-bombs as a balance to Israel's arsenal or Israel must be disarmed regarding its WMD's.
2. It's not dangerous that the atom-bombs are under control of dictators, at least not more dangerous than in democracies, for reference, see Stalin. Or Truman's use of atom-bombs in Japan, or Bish trying to get through laws that allow the US to nuke countries that don't have nukes, and the space-shield-program, that should make the US invulnerable to nuclear rockets, and is therefore a blanque-cheuque for the US to nuke even countries with nukes without fearing counter-nuking. No, democracies are definetly not better than dictatorhips regarding weapons, nukes etc, they are both on the same level.
Nightcrawler
1) It's not me who used the term islamic bomb. It's a very bad term.
2) stalin was a dangerous guy, WW3 was not that far away at these times. Stalin did not engage war with US in 1945 because of the atomic bomb.
3) Democracies are better for WMD than dictatorship, because the president has not a white paper allowing to do whatever he want.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
3) Democracies are better for WMD than dictatorship, because the president has not a white paper allowing to do whatever he want.
Pretty ironic that the only two A-bombs ever used to wipe out cities were used by a democracy. Sort of contradicts the argument, huh?
You need not agree with me, but I believe the only thing preventing the west and east to wage war against each other during the cold war was mutually assured destruction.
Probably the same is true for the continual low-level conflict between India and Pakistan. Or for the relationship between the US and China or the USSR and China.
Originally posted by Smircle
Pretty ironic that the only two A-bombs ever used to wipe out cities were used by a democracy. Sort of contradicts the argument, huh?
You need not agree with me, but I believe the only thing preventing the west and east to wage war against each other during the cold war was mutually assured destruction.
Probably the same is true for the continual low-level conflict between India and Pakistan. Or for the relationship between the US and China or the USSR and China.
1) It was the first time it was used. At the time the nuclear weapon was not taboo. It's after it became when people discovered the terrible consequences of such bomb.
2) give the bomb to the right hand, and you will have a suicide bomber will be delighted to do the trick .
The middle east conflict is much more than a simple problems of unbalance of weapons.
I don't say I agree with most of Israeli actions, I am not a fan of Sharon, but it's not by given their bloodiest ennemy the possibility to annhilate them, that you will bring peace.
I will never give a nuclear bomb to a countrie who have connections with terrorist org.
3) The two war against Israel where not started by Israel. The Kipour war could have been a disaster. After this you can understand why It's importatnt for Israel to have the military superiority.
Yes the middle east theater do not help to fight against terrorism. But remember that :
- you do not solve the problem by removing one group (exile the israelians or the palestinian)
- even if the problem of the middle east was solved, the problem with be displace elsewhere. Fanatics use conflicts in order to foster their bloody ideology. If one conflict vanish, they will soon find an another one to replace it.
I just write that, because I have the feeling sometime, that many people think that life on earth will be better without Isreal.
PS : this is not an apology to all isreali actions : destructions of houses, deaths of innocents ... This is just that I don't think it's by giving more weapons to an other camp that we solve this.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
3) The two war against Israel where not started by Israel. The Kipour war could have been a disaster. After this you can understand why It's importatnt for Israel to have the military superiority.
1. Regarding your comment about dictatorships being in greater probability of using the atom-bomb. It's not true, the Stalin-dictatorship had atom-bombs and didn't use them ever except for deterrence, same is applicable regarding Pakistan. No, the possesion of atom-bombs actually brings security from being attacked, and is an absolute necessity these days for every souvereign state in order to protect its citizens.
Actually the US is the only country that wants the option to use nukes on countries that don't have nukes, and is pushing forward a space-shield-program which will allow the US in the future to use nukes even on countries that do possess nukes.
2. It weren't just two wars that Israel fought against the surrounding arabic countries, it were at least six wars, one in 1948, one in 1956, one in 1967, one in 1972, one in 1978 (against Lebanon) and one in 1982 (again against Lebanon), and all of them were started by Israel, except for the one in 1972. But you know how israelic propaganda works, backed by the protector USA.
Nightcrawler
And, they think that anybody of faith, (Islamic) that die in teh 'just-cause' will also be better in heaven with the 70 Prune-trees . . .
Give them a bomb and they will use it to wipe out Israel faster that you can blink and laugh about the retribution that will send so many glorious martyrs into god's great Date-fields.
Don't believe me? then you missunderstand the irrationality of fundamentalism . . . these people are killing themselves in order to kill a few people on buses
Perhaps we are too used to it to understand how irrational that is . . just use some empathy and put yourself in the bombers place: what would they be thinking in order to strap on the bombs: or worse, to sling bombs on a 13 year old?
Originally posted by pfflam
One thing people forget is that the fundamentally-religiously inclined in the ME, particularly Islamic fundamentalists want to die!
And, they think that anybody of faith, (Islamic) that die in teh 'just-cause' will also be better in heaven with the 70 Prune-trees . . .
Give them a bomb and they will use it to wipe out Israel faster that you can blink and laugh about the retribution that will send so many glorious martyrs into god's great Date-fields.
Don't believe me? then you missunderstand the irrationality of fundamentalism . . . these people are killing themselves in order to kill a few people on buses
Perhaps we are too used to it to understand how irrational that is . . just use some empathy and put yourself in the bombers place: what would they be thinking in order to strap on the bombs: or worse, to sling bombs on a 13 year old?
Sorry, pflam, as much as I agree with you on other topics, on this topic you are totally wrong, and you have swallowed US-propaganda on this one.
Islamic fundamentalists are quite extremistic as they always strive for the absolute maximum of success or total failure, they don't like compromises, but they also are bound in their religion which only allows for war in defense or for opressed people and revenge or retaliation only in the extent of the damage done by the enemy, and it certainly doesn't allow for exaggerated killings, even in the fundamentalism-interpretation of the Islam.
You want examples: Israel vs Palestine-conflict is the perfect example to illustrate that. Israel has obviously droven out a lot of palestinians from their homes and land in order to found Israel, and it has obviously occupated Gaza and Westbank, and opress the palestinians there. Resistance came up first in the form of a secular national movement which later on unified in the PLO, and later on in the islamic movement of Hamas (which by the way was founded with the help of Israel) and Islamic Dschihad, Hizbollah, and other islamistic resistance-movements.
What do they fight, and I now concentrate only on the islamistic resistance: The israelic army in the occupied areas by guerillia-tactics, successfully done in south-Lebanon. The resistance in the occupied areas has led the israelic army to commit collective punishments by massimprisonments (for the sake of recruiting collaborateurs by torturings and threats to do the torturings also on the familiy-members, wifes and children), killing of civilians in the occupied areas, destroying of harvests, curfews, etc...
Espescially the killing of civilians has led to the decision by the islamistic resistance-groups to conduct retaliation-operations, and that is the point, retaliation, the try to revenge the dead civilians by killing also civilians in Israel, but only in the same amount. Israel likes to use snipers, tanks, helicopters and jets to fire rockets into highly populated civilian areas, espescially into civilian buildings.
The israelic army also likes to bury alive palestinians by demolishing their homes during the curfew-times!
The islamistic resistance-groups don't have bulldozers, tanks, helicopters or reliable rockets, so they use people to bring bombs manually to its destinations in Israel, martyrs, who think that when they die they automatically come into paradise whithout looking on their sins. (which is by the way a false belief, as suicide-bombing doesn't count as dying in a war against agressors, but it also doesn't mean automatically hell for them, as retaliation is definetly allowed, so it's back to step one, the sins and good deeds done in life are examined on judgement day, and then decided if the destination of the revenger is hell or paradise).
Up until today Israel kills five times as many civilians in the occupied areas as the resistance-groups kill in Israel, so they haven't achieved the full revenge, but they certainly would never kill more than the agressor Israel kills, as that would mean crossing the line of balance the Islam has prescripted to keep, and it would mean hell for the islamists.
No, even if the islamists would have an atom-bombs, they wouldn't use them, except for deterrence or for the improbable case that the islamists were attacked by an atom-bomb, so the retaliation-rule would allow them to counter-nuke.
Islamists sure are ready to die for their cause, but they wouldn't want to cross the line of proportion and balance, as they would definetly land in hell for that and they know it.
Nightcrawler
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Sorry, pflam, as much as I agree with you on other topics, on this topic you are totally wrong, and you have swallowed US-propaganda on this one.
Islamic fundamentalists are quite extremistic as they always strive for the absolute maximum of success or total failure, they don't like compromises, but they also are bound in their religion which only allows for war in defense or for opressed people and revenge or retaliation only in the extent of the damage done by the enemy, and it certainly doesn't allow for exaggerated killings, even in the fundamentalism-interpretation of the Islam.
You want examples: Israel vs Palestine-conflict is the perfect example to illustrate that. Israel has obviously droven out a lot of palestinians from their homes and land in order to found Israel, and it has obviously occupated Gaza and Westbank, and opress the palestinians there. Resistance came up first in the form of a secular national movement which later on unified in the PLO, and later on in the islamic movement of Hamas (which by the way was founded with the help of Israel) and Islamic Dschihad, Hizbollah, and other islamistic resistance-movements.
What do they fight, and I now concentrate only on the islamistic resistance: The israelic army in the occupied areas by guerillia-tactics, successfully done in south-Lebanon. The resistance in the occupied areas has led the israelic army to commit collective punishments by massimprisonments (for the sake of recruiting collaborateurs by torturings and threats to do the torturings also on the familiy-members, wifes and children), killing of civilians in the occupied areas, destroying of harvests, curfews, etc...
Espescially the killing of civilians has led to the decision by the islamistic resistance-groups to conduct retaliation-operations, and that is the point, retaliation, the try to revenge the dead civilians by killing also civilians in Israel, but only in the same amount. Israel likes to use snipers, tanks, helicopters and jets to fire rockets into highly populated civilian areas, espescially into civilian buildings.
The israelic army also likes to bury alive palestinians by demolishing their homes during the curfew-times!
The islamistic resistance-groups don't have bulldozers, tanks, helicopters or reliable rockets, so they use people to bring bombs manually to its destinations in Israel, martyrs, who think that when they die they automatically come into paradise whithout looking on their sins. (which is by the way a false belief, as suicide-bombing doesn't count as dying in a war against agressors, but it also doesn't mean automatically hell for them, as retaliation is definetly allowed, so it's back to step one, the sins and good deeds done in life are examined on judgement day, and then decided if the destination of the revenger is hell or paradise).
Up until today Israel kills five times as many civilians in the occupied areas as the resistance-groups kill in Israel, so they haven't achieved the full revenge, but they certainly would never kill more than the agressor Israel kills, as that would mean crossing the line of balance the Islam has prescripted to keep, and it would mean hell for the islamists.
No, even if the islamists would have an atom-bombs, they wouldn't use them, except for deterrence or for the improbable case that the islamists were attacked by an atom-bomb, so the retaliation-rule would allow them to counter-nuke.
Islamists sure are ready to die for their cause, but they wouldn't want to cross the line of proportion and balance, as they would definetly land in hell for that and they know it.
Nightcrawler
Explain where is the rule of balance in the 9/11 attack ?
Extremist understand their religion in their own special way. They have their own agenda. Otherwise how can we explain and inquisition ? It's obvious that this missbehavioring have nothing to do with the message of the christ.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Explain where is the rule of balance in the 9/11 attack ?
Extremist understand their religion in their own special way. They have their own agenda. Otherwise how can we explain and inquisition ? It's obvious that this missbehavioring have nothing to do with the message of the christ.
I can't talk about christianity as I don't know much about it, but I can talk about muslims, the moderate, the militant and the fundamentalistic muslims. Currently there are 1,5 billion mulsims in the world, and about 90% of them are moderate mulsims, though most of them are in some for or the other opressed, be it by the Israelis, the russians, or even by their own governments which are mostly dictatory regimes installed and military supported by the US.
The 9/11 attack in the US included an attack on the pentagon, a tried attack on the congress or whitehouse, and an attack on the WTC. The death-toll was something in the range of 3,000-5,000 killed civilians, I don't remember the last estimate.
The US on the other hand led many wars, mostly placeholderwars in the islamic countries, like in the Lebanon-wars, in the IraqvsIran-war, or the Afganistan vs. Sovietunion-war, etc...
leading to much more than a few thousand killed civilians.
There is also the indirect killing of civilians by the USA by supporting dictatory regimes, which suppress their own people in the islamic world, that would have been otherwise long ago toppled.
Then there is the installation of the Baath-regime in Iraq with Saddam Hussein as its leader, and then the military support of it, including chemical weapons...
Then there is the support for Israel, financial support with 3 billions dollars annualy, and with the latest war-technologies with which Israel suppresses the palestinians, and with which Israel has started many wars against the arabic neighbour-states in order to expand.
It's only the first time an islamistic organization comes up, which was by the way financed, trained and supported by the US as the enemy was still the Soviet-Union, that tries to play the same game as the terroristic organizations of the US, like the CIA and the paramilitary-troops.
Nightcrawler
Originally posted by Tulkas
You don't see any Jew hatred in the US?.............um.....kkk, Nation of Islam, neo-nazis, good ol boys...forget it.......
and thats only the organized stuff.. there are lots of people that hate jews. I hear some people complain about them all the time...
Originally posted by The General
and thats only the organized stuff.. there are lots of people that hate jews. I hear some people complain about them all the time...
True. People may spray graffiti about a particular group and that is result of hatred. But very few groups are hated to the same degree as Jews, even to the point of it becoming cultural, even a part of language. When was the last time you heard someone say they just got muslimed on a purchase? Calling someone a 'chink' or 'nigger' only really makes sense when used as a derogotory term against a member of a specific group. Calling someone a shylock conveys the same meaning regardless of who you label with it, even though it was originally a derogatory term for jews, specifically insulting them as ruthless moneylenders.
People who claim they don't think there is both organised and genenal hatred for Jews, regardless of Israel's actions and that it is more cross-culturally pervasive have really made themselves purposefully ignorant.
Originally posted by segovius
And martyrs don't want to go to the hereafter having committed a catalogue of sins the night before.
Unless of course they have been convinced their martyrdom will absolve them of all their sins. Hell, complete absolution based on your final act might even make one more willing to taste all the fruit forbidden to you.
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
No, even if the islamists would have an atom-bombs, they wouldn't use them, except for deterrence or for the improbable case that the islamists were attacked by an atom-bomb, so the retaliation-rule would allow them to counter-nuke.
Unless of course they haven't actually tallied up the exact number of muslim deaths caused by Israel and figure that any number of jews killed would 'balance' they scales. Very rarely does exact equity come into play when dealing with revenge, especially when religion and emotions are mixed in.
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Islamists sure are ready to die for their cause, but they wouldn't want to cross the line of proportion and balance, as they would definetly land in hell for that and they know it.
Calling for the complete erradication of the jews doesn't exactly fit with your arguement of them needing to find some zen-like balance in the number of deaths they seek.
AQ does not care for defensive measures: they want to and have expressed as much, kill as many 'infidel Americans' as they can, not to mention 'Zionist Jews' . . the percentage is small, but the proof to the contrary, meaning the proof that the suicide mindset that wants to die for Heavenly Glory, is all too obvious and real -- and it is not a political position or the product of propaganda.
If AQ had the bomb it would only take the time needed to place it for them to use it . . . our faith in 'humanity' is entirely too leanient when it comes to their capacities and desires.
Originally posted by pfflam
I think that nightcrawlwer is talking about a phenomena that is entirely too rational: sure some of the Palistinian bombers are acting in a sort of balanced manner:
AQ does not care for defensive measures: they want to and have expressed as much, kill as many 'infidel Americans' as they can, not to mention 'Zionist Jews' . . the percentage is small, but the proof to the contrary, meaning the proof that the suicide mindset that wants to die for Heavenly Glory, is all too obvious and real -- and it is not a political position or the product of propaganda.
If AQ had the bomb it would only take the time needed to place it for them to use it . . . our faith in 'humanity' is entirely too leanient when it comes to their capacities and desires.
I think nightcrawler has a point. Just because we don't understand our enemy, it doesn't mean he's crazy. This is a common error in the west. Demonization of the enemy been happening all through history. But it turnes out most enemies can make peace.
You pfflam, should see that this fits right into the Bushiate worldveiw of good Vs. Evil...
Many poeple manage their religion with their own cooking, especially extremists. They have an agenda and they follow it. They are not in quest of the "truth". It doesn't mean that they are hypocrite : they follow their own personal agenda. They see in their religion what they want to see, but they have the greatest faith in it.
From you own word they follow a logic.
But what I wanted to point out, is that their logic, is not the logic of their religion, and therefore it's not because let's say Islam or any other religion said that you should not reteliate more than you have suffer that they will follow it. They will find an excuse like these people indirectly killed so many peoples and that's a reason to kill them all.
I can't talk about christianity as I don't know much about it, but I can talk about muslims, the moderate, the militant and the fundamentalistic muslims. Currently there are 1,5 billion mulsims in the world, and about 90% of them are moderate mulsims, though most of them are in some for or the other opressed, be it by the Israelis, the russians, or even by their own governments which are mostly dictatory regimes installed and military supported by the US.
The 9/11 attack in the US included an attack on the pentagon, a tried attack on the congress or whitehouse, and an attack on the WTC. The death-toll was something in the range of 3,000-5,000 killed civilians, I don't remember the last estimate.
The US on the other hand led many wars, mostly placeholderwars in the islamic countries, like in the Lebanon-wars, in the IraqvsIran-war, or the Afganistan vs. Sovietunion-war, etc...
leading to much more than a few thousand killed civilians.
There is also the indirect killing of civilians by the USA by supporting dictatory regimes, which suppress their own people in the islamic world, that would have been otherwise long ago toppled.
Then there is the installation of the Baath-regime in Iraq with Saddam Hussein as its leader, and then the military support of it, including chemical weapons...
Then there is the support for Israel, financial support with 3 billions dollars annualy, and with the latest war-technologies with which Israel suppresses the palestinians, and with which Israel has started many wars against the arabic neighbour-states in order to expand.
It's only the first time an islamistic organization comes up, which was by the way financed, trained and supported by the US as the enemy was still the Soviet-Union, that tries to play the same game as the terroristic organizations of the US, like the CIA and the paramilitary-troops.
Nightcrawler
First paragraph : OK
Second paragraph : Sorry but it's too easy. US did not went to war with these countries, they just give support to one side. It's always like this. Even without support, the war will have done many casualties, and too much deaths. Nobody asked Iraq to attack Iran, nor syria to invade libanon. I have many grips against US politic, but it's too easy to transform US in the scapegoat of all problems of the world. It's way to easy to explain that dictatorship exist in middle east because of US.
Occidental countries have their sins and responsabilites in the current state of the world, but some countries should make their own autocritic.
I will be absolutely clear : there is no excuse for 9/11 attack. People who made it don't give a rat ass of the events you related : they just hate US , because it incarnate the arrogant domination of the occindental world at this time of history.
Third : US never installed Saddam. They helped him in the first time, after he took power , like many occidental countries, who believed falsely he was a modern man.
Fourth : US give found to Iraq, but also to arab countries, like Egyptia who recieved also billions of fund ( i haven't the exact number)
Fifht : the CIA has fucked many things it's not new. perhaps they have sucess, but we never heard of it.
Originally posted by New
I think nightcrawler has a point. Just because we don't understand our enemy, it doesn't mean he's crazy. This is a common error in the west. Demonization of the enemy been happening all through history. But it turnes out most enemies can make peace.
You pfflam, should see that this fits right into the Bushiate worldveiw of good Vs. Evil...
It is unfortunate that it 'fits right in ' with that world-view, but the fact is is that no matter how much I might want to drink a beer with them and might even kinda get along -as they seem like chummy fellows: they want to kill me, they have proclaimed as much, OBL even declared war about 6 months before 911 and stated as much. 'Kill Americans wherever you find them' . . didn't need to say Jews, that was allready understood along time ago.
They may not be 'Evil', but the thoughts that grip their heads and keep them from thinking beyond a their extremely over-constructed ideology is as close to a definition as I can come up with . . . me, who doesn't believe in absolute 'evil'. . . .
(Just know that much of what America is doing helps fill-out that definition for me, of a possible way of using the term 'evil' as a descriptive non-substantive reality)
Iraq was a mistake, but make no mistake: the Islamic Radicals that are like AQ,and AQ are the same as the worst of Nazi Fascists, and would, if they could, resort to the same form of killing . . .
. . . unlike Nazis, they might be more 'conflicted', as it does seem to contradict thier expressed religion . . . but they have shown that they can smooth that over by simply denying humanity to the western infidels.
Cain's descendants are those nationalities in the ME. I remeber in Genesis, I think it was the 4th chapter that they will be cursed as vagrants. i also remember there being other references to Cain's descendants being cursed.
It could explain it, if you put stock in the Bible.